Tag-Archive for » Science «

If there ever is a God, he is probably hiding himself sufficiently enough so that our innate insatiable curiosity may lead us to investigate how he made the universe, the galaxies, the stars, the planets and life. The excitement will be ruined if he’d just appear and say, “hey! stop thinking about it, I made everything”.

But then, in the end, we might be surprised to find out who or what is behind the veiling mystery. All of us may be wrong about our concept of God or of ultimate reality, it may be more grand than most of us have thought. Absolute denial of the supernatural as well as the religious perceptions of it may both turn out to be oversimplistic. What lies beyond the bounds of what we humans don’t know? At the very end of this seemingly unending horizon of human exploration, what lies behind the mysterious and the unknown?

The real essence of spirituality and of scientific thinking is the same – that our existence is an attractively grandiose mystery. This is enough positive force to draw us to a life of contemplation,  discovery, and (to a lesser extent) generosity.  Now, that’s a good reason for God to keep hiding.

It seems that humans are hardwired to make some sense of life or to have some meaning. Science and religion both agree on this goal, which is to come up with meaningful models to understand everything. These two spheres of human exploration fulfill our deepest longing to make sense of the world. The only difference is that science is more realistic and objective while religion is more imaginative and subjective.

While I am critical of traditional religions, it cannot be denied that these institutions have done a lot of good to humanity in providing meaning to countless souls throughout generations. It has assisted humanity’s search for a greater view of life and to provide moral directions. However, as societies develop and mature, there is a general trend to become less and less dependent on traditional religious notions and practices. Over time, human beings realized that although we somehow get a coherent and meaningful view of the universe through the lens of myth-based religions, true progress and survival of the human species cannot simply hinge on these dogmatic and closed-ended explanations. What we need is an objective yet dynamic understanding of the world around us.

While it is helpful to simply conjure that various phenomena are results of the activities of the gods, some wise men of old stood and dared to question these mythical and simplistic explanations. They dared to know nature objectively and break the shroud of mystery that surrounds them. Objective mechanistic explanations of common phenomena were made and their accuracy tested. Over the course of time, men of able minds learned that objective knowledge of the world is most beneficial to humanity, which should now be clear to the man in the street. We learned that we need to leave myths and imaginative explanations behind to sustain mental, material and even spiritual progress of mankind.

The general procedure of working out an objective view of the universe constitutes the very core of science. In this method, data from the external world are collected using objective measures with the use of conventional standards and instruments. In this way, the data can be clearly separated from the interpretation of the observer, which can often be swayed to certain biases as a result of personal preferences, cultural background and popular paradigms. While a scientist cannot be totally free from these, all inaccuracies resulting from these biases or from honest mistakes can still be corrected. In the scientific community, data and explanations are published, presented, criticized and revised or even abandoned. The evolution of this method and the community that actively uses and promotes it to advance the objective understanding of everything in the observable world perhaps constitutes the single greatest achievement of the human race.

Since then, the advance of science has been unstoppable. Historically, the development of science has caused religions to recede into unpopularity or to retreat to so-called “spiritual realm” as science is only supposed to concern with the physical and natural world. This is reflected in a simple line to make Galileo’s monumental discoveries compatible with religious ideas of the time – “The Bible shows us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”. This demarcation between physical and spiritual realms is of course purely arbitrary, which simply sets the bounds of where science is now but not a real limitation of scientific inquiry. As soon as science has not yet completed the grand project of coming up with an objective explanation of every observable phenomenon and as soon as myth-based or revelation-based religions can still fit scientific findings to their beliefs, these religious institutions will always be here to stay, doing the same good thing that it has been doing for millennia – providing meaning to billions of souls who instinctively resolve to make sense of their existence.

At the individual level, a choice has to be made on whether to commit oneself to a meaning of life that comes packaged and prescribed by any of the traditional religions or to adopt an open-ended meaning of existence guided by the objectivity of scientific inquiry.

Until the mid-seventies, the scientific productivity of the Philippines was comparable to that of Thailand and Malaysia and a little better over Indonesia. More than 40 years later, the overall productivity of Filipino scientists (i.e. those working in the Philippines) has gone far below the remarkable outputs of Thailand and Malaysia. As of the last three years, even Indonesia has outperformed the Philippines.

This is based on the data from the Science Citation Index (SCI). As their website describes, every journal included in the Thomson Scientific’s ISI  Science Citation Index ExpandedTM has met the high standards of an objective evaluation process that eliminates clutter and excess and delivers data that is accurate, meaningful and timely. The SCI has been accepted worldwide as the standard index of peer-reviewed and valid scientific reports.

The number of publications from the Philippines in this database was retrieved along with neighboring countries that started out close. Other countries in the Southeast Asian region had either too high (e.g. Singapore) or too low (e.g. Brunei) output to merit a meaningful comparison. The retrieved data were processed in a spreadsheet and herein presented in a comprehensive graph.

As summarized in the figure above, the period from around 1980 to 1995 is marked by stagnation and lack of productive scientific activity. This is one and a half decade of lethargy while Thailand and Malaysia were seemingly laying groundwork for a future upsurge in scientific productivity. Upward trend only becomes visible from year 2000 onwards. Whether this increase means a signal for a future scientific revolution or not is a matter of speculation. What is clear though is that the progress of science in the Philippines has been very slow based on accepted international metric standard for scientific productivity.

This should be taken as a challenge by local Filipino scientists. While we produce many talented graduate students, most are going abroad for further training and long-term job. The government should reconsider it’s priorities and approaches in dealing with Science and Technology issues and focus on how to prevent this brain drain; which, when left unabated, is sure to plunge the country further down from where it is now.